User talk:Bold185

February 2023
Hello Bold185. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are  required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Bold185. The template Paid can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

No. It isn't trying to provide information to users related to onlyfans. Ìm not getting paid that's out of general interest in the industry and topic.

No. It isn't trying to provide information to users related to onlyfans. Ìm not getting paid that's out of general interest in the industry and topic.

Bold185 (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Then why is your username nearly identical to the website you're linking to? Why are you only linking to their homepage, and not to any actual articles or anything that supports the content you're supposedly referencing? What about this website makes you think it meets the criteria to be considered a reliable source? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 03:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe the world should hear the story and see it unfold. It's a reliable source because it's been growing tremendously and deserves to be known as a reputable source, it deserves the attention after all the hard work put into it and it deserves the notion to be notified as a quality source. The reference to there is the credibility factor, as it lives up to its name and I believe it will be a fantastic nsfw platform readers and journalists should know about eventually Bold185 (talk) 04:21, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

That's what I think. No I'm not paid, I'm doing that because I believe in letting a story be heard. Letting a journey unfold and sometimes one needs to be in the spot light to be able to prove the words spoken. It's a truly stable highly reputable source from where I stand and it needs to be known as such. Bold185 (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Spencer T• C 04:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)